1964 (4) TMI 102 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for refund of sales tax payments under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Claim for refund barred by limitation under Section 14 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.
3. Requirement of an order of assessment for claiming a refund.
4. Lack of statutory provision for claiming refund before assessment order.
5. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 in enforcing statutory obligations.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought a refund of sales tax payments made voluntarily for two quarters in 1953 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The payments were lawful at the time following the United Motors case but became invalid after the Supreme Court's decision in the Bengal Immunity case. The petitioner contended that the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956, did not apply to their case.

2. The Sales Tax Authorities rejected the petitioner's refund application, citing limitation as the claim was not made within the prescribed period. Section 14 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, provides a specific time limit for refund applications based on the date of assessment order or final order on appeal, revision, review, or reference.

3. The court considered the requirement of an assessment order for claiming a refund under Section 14. The petitioner argued for a refund under the main portion of the section despite no formal assessment order. However, the court held that an assessment order is necessary as per the Orissa Sales Tax Rules for claiming a refund under Section 14.

4. The absence of a statutory provision for claiming a refund before an assessment order was highlighted. The court noted that the petitioner could seek a refund under general law subject to the rules of limitation specified in the Limitation Act. The lack of specific provisions in the Sales Tax Act or Rules for such cases was emphasized.

5. Regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, the court clarified that it arises to enforce statutory obligations on state officers. In cases where no assessment order exists, and there is no right against the Sales Tax Officer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, the court stated that the petitioner should pursue normal remedies for refund claims. The court concluded that the case did not warrant the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, leading to the dismissal of the application.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application for refund of sales tax payments, citing limitation and the absence of an assessment order as key factors. The petitioner was advised to pursue alternative remedies for claiming a refund, and the jurisdiction under Article 226 was deemed inapplicable in this scenario.